I am wondering if any of you impose some sort of injury clause for trades. For example, if a deal is made in the morning, let's say Pujols for Wright, and Wright goes down that afternoon with a season ender, is it tough luck or do you reverse it as the commish?
Or, how about a scenario where the offer is made in the morning, and after the news is announced, the guy accepts it before the original offerer is allowed to retract it. Do you allow this?
I kind of lean towards reversing the deal because it's sort of like the trade is accepted, pending a physical. It gives a 2 day window (or however long your time is set to) to make sure all players clear major injuries, just like in real life. Of course, if the injury is minor, the team can still accept the trade.
I am trying to find the balance between ethics and tough luck. What suggestions do you guys have for trades involving injuries if you are the commish and the sole wielder of power to reverse the trade?
If the trade is offered and accepted and then there's a major injury, it's tough luck. You do nothing.
If the trade is offered, and then there's a major injury, and then the other guy accepts (trading away his injured player, assumedly) I would step in and reverse it. Some people will say you shouldn't leave a trade hanging for that to happen, but I'd do something about it, anyways.
Setting a 2-day window (or whatever) just pushes further in time that you have for this situation. Say you instituted a 2-day review window and then the guy breaks his leg after 2 days and 1 hour or 2 days and 6 hours or 3 days or whatever.... really, you're not solving anything, you're just kicking the problem down the road.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
I know many will say that a trade is a trade but I would disagree. For a couple of reasons.
We all do this for fun (maybe a few bucks is involved). If we find a league where people get along and want them to continue in the future you need to do the fair thing.
We all can not be our computers all day so we can not pull an offer if something happens. So I don't think it is fair to say someone was at fault for leaving a trade offer out there.
I think the fair thing for the commish to do is basically say whichever team the player who was injured was on at the time of the injury is the team that he should stay with. Kind of like in professional sports where a player has to undergo a physical before a trade can go through. If he is not physically fit to play the team that was due to recieve him should not be forced to take him.
Eagle Baseball wrote:I think the fair thing for the commish to do is basically say whichever team the player who was injured was on at the time of the injury is the team that he should stay with.
A better way of saying what I was trying for.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Eagle Baseball wrote:I know many will say that a trade is a trade but I would disagree. For a couple of reasons.
We all do this for fun (maybe a few bucks is involved). If we find a league where people get along and want them to continue in the future you need to do the fair thing.
We all can not be our computers all day so we can not pull an offer if something happens. So I don't think it is fair to say someone was at fault for leaving a trade offer out there.
Well said!
Sure you could go by the letter of the law, but sometimes its not worth it. Many people don't have access to computers for a good part of the day. So if I propose a trade to a team for David Wright, then go off to work and find out that during the day Wright had broken his leg and then the other manager then accepted my trade, well there is just something about that which doesn't seem right. It sounds more like a good way to ruin leagues and piss managers off.
I agree with Eagle and with Kimbo, but the other part of the way you currently do things is just insane. If the injury occurs after the deal is done, you cannot overturn the deal. The player was not damaged when the deal was made, and once the deal is agreed to, the player is no longer a risk for his old team. The new team assumes the injury risk of a player once the deal is agreed to.
If I were in your league, and a deal were reversed because of an injury suffered after both parties agreed to a deal, I would probably raise hell. I would also make sure to never make a deal for a starting pitcher until the morning of his scheduled start, just as a hedge against the slight chance he gets hurt.
I think that if you have a rule in place for trades that are accepted by one party after an injury is suffered, you have to have a rule explaining exactly how it will be determined. If a guy pulls a hammy and will miss a week, will the trade be reversed? What about if he is going to miss a month? Two months? What denotes an injury serious enough to use this rule? How do you decide when an injury occurred. What if Wright pulls a hamstring on Tuesday afternoon, a trade is accepted for him on Tuesday night, then Wright plays three innings on Wednesday before going on the DL?
All details that you should try to have a set of guidelines in your rules to explain how that will be handled.
I raised this exact issue on here last year. I was on the fence myself, especially because I was the one receiving an injured player. The player wasn't injured when I accepted the trade and then went on the DL while it was in the middle of being voted on. The consensus in my league, and the consensus here on the Cafe, was that the trade should be evaluated based on the value of each player involved WHEN THE TRADE WAS ACCEPTED.
If you accepted a trade for a player whose value declined AFTER you hit the Accept button, it really is just tough luck. If you overturn the trade based on an ex post facto injury, then you're only hurting the team sending the player, who did nothing wrong but make a legitimate trade with very fortunate timing, by forcing him to keep the player he just fairly traded away.
As someone who has been faced with this issue and resolved it, I would recommend you go the same route... evaluate trades the same way they were evaluated by the managers involved. Injuries are always a risk with fantasy sports and we know it comes with territory when we get into the game.
Trojan Pony wrote:I raised this exact issue on here last year. I was on the fence myself, especially because I was the one receiving an injured player. The player wasn't injured when I accepted the trade and then went on the DL while it was in the middle of being voted on. The consensus in my league, and the consensus here on the Cafe, was that the trade should be evaluated based on the value of each player involved WHEN THE TRADE WAS ACCEPTED.
If you accepted a trade for a player whose value declined AFTER you hit the Accept button, it really is just tough luck. If you overturn the trade based on an ex post facto injury, then you're only hurting the team sending the player, who did nothing wrong but make a legitimate trade with very fortunate timing, by forcing him to keep the player he just fairly traded away.
As someone who has been faced with this issue and resolved it, I would recommend you go the same route... evaluate trades the same way they were evaluated by the managers involved. Injuries are always a risk with fantasy sports and we know it comes with territory when we get into the game.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by jy2003 » Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:17 pm 
